Snap Judgment: Implicit Perceptions of a (Political) Court
- 412 Downloads
Do people fundamentally perceive the Supreme Court as a political institution? Despite the central importance of this question to theories of public evaluations of the Court and its decisions, it remains largely unanswered. To this end, we develop a new, implicit measure of political perceptions of the Court. This new measure relies on a categorization task wherein respondents quickly associate political or non-political attributes with the Supreme Court relative to institutions that are high or low in politicization. We find that the public implicitly perceives the Court as less political than Congress (high politicization) and more political than traffic court (low politicization) and that this measure is distinct from self-reported (explicit) perceptions of politicization. Finally, we find that implicit perceptions have a distinct effect on predicting diffuse support for the court and specific support for one of two Court decisions.
KeywordsSupreme Court Public opinion Implicit attitudes Diffuse support Specific support
We are grateful for the helpful comments provided by Kevin McGuire, Alex Theodoridis, and the participants in the Faculty Colloquium in Public Law at Princeton University.
- Baird, V. A. (2001). Building institutional legitimacy: The role of procedural justice. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 333–354.Google Scholar
- Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York: Delacorte Press.Google Scholar
- Bybee, K. J. (2010). All judges are political—except when they are not: Acceptable hypocrisies and the rule of law. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Intawan, C. & Nicholson, S.P. (2016). My Trust in Government is Implicit: Automatic Trust in Government and System Support. Paper presented at Exploring New Frontiers, Forging New Synergies: Bolstering the Links Between Bio-Politics and Political Psychology conference, University of California, Merced.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
- Posner, R. A. (2008). How judges think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Scheb, J. M., & Lyons, W. (2000). The myth of legality and public evaluation of the Supreme Court. Social Science Quarterly, 81(4), 928–940.Google Scholar
- Theodoridis, A. G. (forthcoming). Me, myself, and (I), (D) or (R)? Partisan intensity through the lens of implicit identity. Journal of Politics.Google Scholar